We need to talk a LOT about Jury Nullification in this country. They are trying to weaponize the courts, and ultimately it doesn’t come down to the system, or the judges, it comes down the Citizens simply saying NO.
Trials put the power into the hands of the Citizens, and we should exploit that power against our Opressors. WE will decide who gets punished in this country.
You know what, the people are alright.
You heard em boys, not a crime. Get after it!
damn things should never have been built in the first place
But they were. And now the resolution needs to not only include removing the cameras but also the freedoms from those who have been blatantly violating the rights of millions of Americans. From the oligarchs, the senators involved, the council members who got paid off, to every single employee in between that chose to go to work for these companies knowing full well their objective.
On the subject of Flock…
These are “autonomous deputies?” But uh, where is every single warrant for every plate they catch on a car? The plate may be public property, but the vehicle is not. Sure, maybe a bank has a lien due to a loan, but it’s still private property. This is some serious 4th Amendment violation because I have seen 0 warrant for any of these unwarranted searches.
They dont need a warrant for a plate that is visible from public. If your car was locked up in a garage, that would be a different story. Taking your car out in public is the same as taking your face out in public legally speaking.
That really needs to change also. That made sense back when it was just recording something in public that a random officer could have seen, but it’s no longer the same thing. No police force could have such large scale comprehensive surveillance and recording based on what an officer could have seen in public .
The fact that you could even have an officer overstep his authority to stalk someone one nationwide for personal reasons, is not just a failure of privacy safeguards, but proof that large scale surveillance is not the same as “what any random officer could have seen”
There needs to be a threshold, beyond which a warrant is required
You are correct in theory. In reality, its messy.
The courts suppose that a theoretical officer could be at any public place at any time for various reasons, and they are correct. Anything viewable from a public space is subject to plain view doctrine.
Your problem is that you say the scope of the actual surveillance available is disproportionate to the reality of what officers could feasibly see in the same timeframe. You are basically arguing that a continuous surveillance of public spaces constitutes an overbroad search.
The problem is that courts have set no upper limit on passive public observation. I cant think of any precedent where “the cops look this way too much” has ever been set as a valid cause of action against a government interest. Your best bet would be trying to argue that its prejudicial, but it’d be hard to proceed when there is surveillance on everyone pretty equally.
My problem with it is mostly that its a private network. If these cameras and services are being paid for with public funds, then the images they capture should be available for public use. Thats a whole new nightmare all on its own, but thats kind of the technohorror future we are building towards. Anyone being able to track down anyone at any time is a scary thought. But that’s what you get when you build a giant spy network with public money. The public gets access according to the law.
You what really works? Having a law on the books that plainly states the “the driver must be ticketed”. And NOT the vehicle. So unless they pull the car over and hand the ticket to whoever is driving, they can’t use cameras for that purpose.
Cool, so anyone who can afford a self driving car is immune to tickets and traffic citations. Very bourgeois.
Ticketing a car is a good practice to avoid police interaction, which is the real danger in this country. The burden of proof still applies in court, so even if you did get a “phantom” ticket, they still have to prove you were in control of the vehicle at the time. I recently got a red light camera ticket on a rental thrown out because I showed i turned in the vehicle 4 hours before the time of the infraction. Goddamn Hertz tried to throw me under the bus. Always keep your receipts.
Not at all how that works.
Then how do plain view doctrine and warrantless searches work then?
By people like you who normalize it, that’s how.
Also, these cameras are subject to angular resolution. The “AI” is hallucinating if it “sees every plate” because some are blurry nonsense, even to a human.
That man did us a favor
That grand jury.
FTFY
Why not both?
Nah, destroying those mass surveillance cameras is a public duty. One I don’t have the cojones to do, but a public duty nonetheless.
These are on public land without adequate public consultation… therefore they are “litter” and anyone removing them is doing a public service.
facts
I imagine all cases prosecuted for destruction of networked Flock and Axios cameras are going to struggle to get through a jury. It’s a clear privacy violation and everyone knows it.
While you are right, there are almost no laws in the US that protect privacy. Short of being in your own home with the blinds down, there is next to nothing working in your favor. The assumption is that you’re in “public” or clear view of the public, thusly, screw you.
Your pool? Clear view from the road. That douchenozzle with a drone, probably not breaking the law when he takes a video flying over. “Oh, I was looking at my own roof” or some bullshit.
There should be privacy laws. The world has changed so much, but most laws are stuck in the stone age and now sold to the highest bidder who actively monetizes the complete lack of privacy laws.
In the US, you can look up TONS of details about anyone’s house. From the sale price, the tax history, tons of details about it and even photos of the inside. In what normal world does that make sense?! Your employer sells your salary data to ADP who then sells it to any number of others. What the actual fuck?! Nobody asked for this, it’s opt-out only but the opt out expires. I did it a few years ago, and it’s back on again.
If privacy were not important, then there should not be bathroom doors.
We have legal precedent that the police cannot use GPS trackers. A similar case was opened for the APLs in traditional speed cameras, but they were determined to be constitutional since you have no expectation of privacy on a public road and a camera can’t be used to track you like GPS. The networked APLs accomplish the same result as GPS trackers just without technically using a GPS tracker.
Is this not what an ankle monitor is?
There are plenty of privacy laws, but the catch is that you have to make an effort to create privacy. Putting your blinds down creates privacy. Building a roof over your pool and walls around your yard create privacy. There is just no expectation of privacy in public, and technically anything that can be seen from public is “in plain view”. Protecting your privacy is not a function of the state unless you had an expectation of privacy through explicit disclaimer or honest effort.
This definition of “privacy” just makes it an addon of property rights, rather than a human right.
How truly American.
Just adding here, what is clear to all of us as Coaster indicated, that aggregate privacy and anonymity are what is really at stake here.
Sure, I’m in public and just walking around. I don’t have a right to privacy in those instants. Some jerk with a camera is within their rights to capture my image.
The other aspect of the laws, though, is that even a few years ago, that image was of an anonymous person. The photographer didn’t know who I was and couldn’t find out without asking me and if a cop wanted that picture they had to request it from the taker. Now, though, that image can be shuffled off to a giant datacenter to be processed and potentially figure out who I am, coordinating the time, place, clothing, activities, nearby people, and myriad other details and the tech companies have no problem handing it over that information without any of the humans ever knowing.
I think the simplest solution is that any LEO querying a company’s data about a private entity should require a warrant or subpoena. Data sharing agreements between companies and governments should be illegal.
The longer solution is that collecting and retaining this information “for business purposes” needs to be more heavily regulated. The current definitions of PII are out of date. PII should include things like location, likeness, mood, etc, and the history of those things. Look at what Walmart and others are doing with dynamic pricing, for example.
But if you are in public and i follow you nonstop, keeping track of where and when you go…well you would say i was stalking you. Why is it bad for me but ok for a network of cameras.
We need 1 good lawyer to argue this case.
Wait wait… explain this ADP thing. How do I opt out?
Companies are trying to prevent people switching jobs to get raises by creating a central database of all employees and their salaries. That way, when you try to find a new job they can pull up your salary history and not accidentally give you a 40% bump when your desperation factor clearly shows you’ll settle for 10%.
I assume adp is just one of those companies doing this, and you opt out by not participating in the economy.
Plus blacklist, which happens accidentally with ai recruiters now
Go here: https://employees.theworknumber.com/. Create account log in, surf through myriad of pages to find the way to opt out. It’s in there somewhere.
Exactly. So juries will make their own decisions.
Federal charges
100% Ohio will go after him now.
Looks like Flock is back on the menu!
…boys!
And girls!
And my axe!
FlockHopper is a great way to see where they’re going up around you. You know, for avoiding them and NOTHING ELSE.
deleted by creator
I think FlockHopper pulls from deflock and it also does GPS routing as well. Honestly avoiding flock adds maybe a minute extra to my commute so it’s worth it.
I looked online, and I’m kind of disappointed that there aren’t any nearby where I live. I want to do my part!
Then they are either being discussed by your local government to be installes or they already subscribed to one of the equivelant compeditors. This shit is everywhere.
Holy shit. Over 40 have gone up within 4 miles of my house in the last 3 months.
Is there a specific site that lists them?
I just used “have I been flocked”
deleted by creator
Saw my first one knocked over yesterday. Cheered.
For once, the law was working.
deleted by creator
Jury Nullification is like the secret code of the US justice system.That’s why most of the people that work for the system absolutely despised the whole idea.
Why should law enfocement and prosecuters get to decide which laws to enforce and which not to, but jurrors cant?
Unless the laws on the books were short and perfect, there is always going to be enforcement choices, and it seems to me the jury nulification option is no worse than other selective enforcement. It lets guilty people go free, sure, but it sometimes stops unjust incarceration.
It’s a great mechanism for “peer review” especially in the sense that ethics and legality are often entirely different things.
It can cut both ways though, it was used in the South in favor of racists.
I’ll keep that in mind next time we have some influence over policy.
In a sense, its the system functioning as it should. If you have a healthy democratic society with good principals, juries should acquit people for things that may be crimes but are perfectly reasonable and justified.
Though this happened with the grand jury, which only needs a majority vote (sometimes a supermajority). It means a lot of people chose to nullify or didn’t trust the prosecution to give a fair trial.
The us justice system is already fucked up and makes a joke of the term justice.
I mean, if it wasn’t packaged up in the American flag and pax americana, your nations actions would be that of clearly terrorist nation.
I don’t expect the taliban to have a working legal/justice system either.
This is really true. Pick a blog, video, or what ever lawyer you want making comment on the state of the federal justice system right now. It’s a mess and a shit show.
It has been for a long time
It is so much worse now. Look at the former career employees that abandoned ship. Or the current head prosecutor.
It is so much worse.
The 5-4 and Strict Scrutiny podcasts are fucking infuriating to listen to. The hypocrisy and self contradiction in Supreme Court and some circuit court decisions is insane.
What is Jury Nullification?
Basically a jury can legally decide to nullify by declaring “not guilty” regardless of the facts or the judge’s instructions, etc. This is why even mentioning jury nullification during a trial can really upset the judge and the prosecution. It is supposed to be something every jury is aware of, but that is usually not actually the case.
Any justice system actually. Common law especially though.
Common Law is better than codified law. That’s the only reason we have juries and don’t just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case?
The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law’s basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now.
Jury vs judge trial is a separate axis from common law vs civil law. You can have common law (where decisions of higher courts are deemed binding on lower courts) even if lower courts are all judge-only trials. You can have trials decided by a jury where every decision made by a judge is ultimately answerable only to written statute, with prior judicial judgments being at best persuasive.
They actually passed that??
Yeah, first the Tories maybe 5-7 years back or so cancelled juries for crimes with less than 1 year imprisonment, then Starmer’s labour party just upped it to all crimes less than 3 years.
In the late 19th century they also passed a law where if they thought jury tampering was going to happen they could just do it with a judge, idk how often they have used it though.
Pretty sure it’s not active yet though, still being discussed?
I’m sure the GOP will figure out how to get rid of it soon enough
No, they will do what they do everywhere else and stack the decks so that nullification is only ever used for “their people”.
They would have to get rid of juries altogether.
Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.
They don’t care about the constitution man.
Trump will do an executive order, it’ll get tonthe Supreme.Cpurt, and they will just kneelnon it for “time to think about it.” And that will be it, its “the law” now.
Why do people keep pretending the Supreme Court always agrees with Trump. They’ve struck him down often and seem to be taking a very strict constitutionalist view. Most recent example would be the whole birthright citizenship ruling.
Obviously this court is terrible for many reasons, they gutted the voting rights act and ended Roe. But they’re not getting rid of juries their record is clear there
The Supreme Court isn’t going to curb its own power for Trump. Even with three of them permanently hanging off his dick, they’ve shut down literally everything he’s done that could affect them personally.
they will give him a secret trial, or disappear to one of thier concentration camps in the south, which would mostly be texas, and the msms will never ever report on a citizen getting detained, at least not a white one.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda been Luigi too
That case is way too political. Common sense has gone out of the window there.
Every time they ever move him around every cop in the area always seems to need to be involved. It’s not like he’s accused of slaughtering an entire precinct with nothing but his bare hands or anything, supposedly he shot one person with a gun that he obviously no longer has. I’m really not sure why they treat him as Hannibal lecter.
To convince the public he’s guilty. It’s one of the ways they skew the narrative.
Remember in the movie “SWAT” where that monster guy who entered the country illegal to kill the one guy and then offered money to get him out? That’s Hollywood doing their part to put the idea in our minds that this kind of thing is warranted.
People do want to help Luigi and that scares the shit out of them too. They expected people’s moral compass to make them side with the CEO he shot. But that’s not what happened. The general public is very much pro Luigi.
The comic of all the insurance claims denied and labeling it “legal murder” does a good job explaining why the moral compass is with Luigi. Everyone knows a friend or friend of a friend who has been denied a claim that could help.
I’m really not sure why they treat him as Hannibal lecter
Because he has the audacity to kill a capitalist, instead of a fellow poor
This, they don’t see you and me as people. We’re lucky to be considered cattle in their views.
The farther you move up the ladder, the less they see us as human. “Human resources” says it all. We’re just another resource to them, like coal, or water, or electricity. An input in their factory to achieve a product output. They don’t care what happens to us while there, as long as we keep producing. They don’t care what happens to us when we leave, as long as we don’t sue them, or smear their name.
Zero fucking empathy for anyone but themselves, not even their own kids. They know what they’re doing is terrible, that’s why they’re building bunkers. They fully expect us to turn on them at some point in the near future. That’s why they surround themselves with boot-licking bodyguards.
Good point. If I’m not mistaken, court juries can still pass a jury nullification for Luigi Mangione, right?
He entered a guilty plea.
I’m honestly surprised he did that. If I was him I would not trust the state to uphold its end of the plea bargain. I’d much rather take my chances with a jury.
He didn’t get a bargain either.
It was to get the NY charges dropped. Which is stupid as fuck, double jeopardy should not be allowed
I already thought Luigi was a fall guy, but that kinda sealed the deal for me.
